I remember when I was really hyped about everything new related to the Souls series, now I just don't care anymore. The series suffers from some serious fatigue, I hope this dlc isn't as short as the last one.
[QUOTE=junker|154;51714752]I remember when I was really hyped about everything new related to the Souls series, now I just don't care anymore. The series suffers from some serious fatigue, I hope this dlc isn't as short as the last one.[/QUOTE]
yeah I couldn't even finish DS3 or the previous DLC, I'll probably have to wait a year or two to try it again
[QUOTE=junker|154;51714752]I remember when I was really hyped about everything new related to the Souls series, now I just don't care anymore. The series suffers from some serious fatigue, I hope this dlc isn't as short as the last one.[/QUOTE]
This is probably why I stopped half way through Bloodborne, something about it didn't grip me.
[QUOTE=junker|154;51714752]I remember when I was really hyped about everything new related to the Souls series, now I just don't care anymore. The series suffers from some serious fatigue, I hope this dlc isn't as short as the last one.[/QUOTE]
The New DLCs are just on cliffs and ruins on cliffs.
I haven't played any entry in the franchise. Is there any best entry to start with for sake of fun, ignoring plot and stuff...
[QUOTE=xianlee;51714835]This is probably why I stopped half way through Bloodborne, something about it didn't grip me.[/QUOTE]
On the other hand I felt like Bloodborne was really fresh and a good step into a new direction. It had the souls feel to it but was still very unique and different enough. Dark Souls stagnated really hard after 2.
[QUOTE=Cows Rule;51714867]I haven't played any entry in the franchise. Is there any best entry to start with for sake of fun, ignoring plot and stuff...[/QUOTE]
Dark Souls is cheap to get but the PC port is horrible, you need DSFix to make it work well.
Dark Souls II: Scholar of the First Sin is basically an enhanced edition of the original Dark Souls II, runs at 60fps and supports DX11. It has more variety of items but the world around suffers a bit compared to the original Dark Souls.
Can't say much about Dark Souls III but just like the other Dark Souls games, it has their good and bad things. If you have a PS4 there is also Bloodborne from the same developers which focuses in more aggressive combat.
[QUOTE=xianlee;51714835]This is probably why I stopped half way through Bloodborne, something about it didn't grip me.[/QUOTE]
Bloodborne is fantastic, though. In my opinion, it's the callback-heavy nature of DS2 and 3 that make them less engaging, whereas Dark Souls and Bloodborne both have self-contained, atmospheric and interesting worlds.
I really think it's just we've seen five similar soulsborne games since demon's came out and that wasn't even a decade ago
There's a surprising people who flat-out hate souls 3 and I think it's fatigue more than anyone else
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;51715039]Bloodborne is fantastic, though. In my opinion, it's the callback-heavy nature of DS2 and 3 that make them less engaging, whereas Dark Souls and Bloodborne both have self-contained, atmospheric and interesting worlds.[/QUOTE]
I will attempt the game again in a few months. I'm not sure if I was just burnt out on that sort of game play as I tried it after finishing Dark Souls 3 which took about 40 hours to complete.
[QUOTE=Simplemac3;51715273]I really think it's just we've seen five similar soulsborne games since demon's came out and that wasn't even a decade ago
There's a surprising people who flat-out hate souls 3 and I think it's fatigue more than anyone else[/QUOTE]
I honestly don't get the complaints about fatigue. 5 games in 7 years is honestly not that much considering how unique the Souls games are in their genre.
You still get 5+ big name FPSes released every year, yet ARPG fans are kind of starved. From the AAA circle, there's Souls and the Witcher, and that's more or less it.
[QUOTE=Samiam22;51717323]I honestly don't get the complaints about fatigue. 5 games in 7 years is honestly not that much considering how unique the Souls games are in their genre.
You still get 5+ big name FPSes released every year, yet ARPG fans are kind of starved. From the AAA circle, there's Souls and the Witcher, and that's more or less it.[/QUOTE]
Well, they're five fairly similar games by the same developer, and considering how highly praised they were for their originality, I don't find it hard to believe that some fans would start to come down on them hard once it starts to starts to feel somewhat played-out.
[QUOTE=xianlee;51714835]This is probably why I stopped half way through Bloodborne, something about it didn't grip me.[/QUOTE]
this comment disgusts me
i played dark souls 1 for like 200 hours and dark souls 2 for quite a bit as well doing all the dlcs and shit
a lot of people dont just beat the game and stop. after beating 3 (not all bosses, nameless king left) im mega fatigued. im playing bloodborne with like 3-4 day breaks between gameplay sessions just out of not enjoying the exploration for some reason.
[QUOTE=junker|154;51714752]I remember when I was really hyped about everything new related to the Souls series, now I just don't care anymore. The series suffers from some serious fatigue, I hope this dlc isn't as short as the last one.[/QUOTE]
I feel the same way for some reason. I only finished Dark Souls 3 once and I haven't played the DLC.
Meanwhile for the past 2-3 weeks or so I've completed Bloodborne on a new character and I'm going through the chalice dungeons for real
I enjoyed Dark Souls 3 from beginning to end. It did almost everything better than 2, especially with its fluent and fast gameplay. And Bloodborne is a masterpiece and felt more fresh due to its Hunter and Beast theme. I really hope the new DLC is longer, seeing how short Ariandel was.
[QUOTE=Antimuffin;51718556]I enjoyed Dark Souls 3 from beginning to end. It did almost everything better than 2, especially with its fluent and fast gameplay. And Bloodborne is a masterpiece and felt more fresh due to its Hunter and Beast theme. I really hope the new DLC is longer, seeing how short Ariandel was.[/QUOTE]
The only thing in 3 I wasn't as pumped for was the way dual wielding was handled. DS2 had the somewhat neat power-stancing system. Which wasn't super flexible but gave you proper movesets as long as you had compatible weapons.
DS3 had specific weapons that worked wonderfully. But sometimes a brother just wants to combine two poison clubs with a spin to win tier moveset.
Yeah, I was also very dissappointed about that. I mainly dual wielded in DS2, shit was fun.
I think the reason I never really could stay too interested in 3 after several play sessions is the fact that it just takes so long to branch out compared to 1, 2, and Bloodborne.
In 1, all you really seemed like you needed to accomplish before you could start exploring was to get to the bonfire past the chapel, but even then you could pick the master key and take a much harder but more interesting route instead. In 2, you've got two different routes to choose right off the bat. In Bloodborne, you can start diverging between routes right after beating Father Gascoigne.
In 3, though, you're guided along through the first three areas before you make it to a branching point. I know about the fact that you can fight a certain boss early if you choose to, and I think that's cool and all, but it's definitely a massive wall for the majority of players to tackle to break the monotony at the start of every new run. And god are those three areas monotonous, especially since you have to dedicate an extra hour and a half of playtime or so to not miss out on the good ending and the Moundmakers.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.